Roy Karlstedt

The claimant law firm sought costs for two motions regarding the enforcement of Certificates of Proof of Claim for unpaid solicitor accounts.

The debtor opposed and sought costs, arguing he was entirely successful on one motion and partially successful on the other.

The court found that success was divided, as the debtor succeeded on one motion but failed in his request to have the accounts assessed, while the claimant was substantially successful on the second motion.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and ordered that neither party be awarded costs.

A law firm sought orders permitting enforcement of two Certificates of Proof of Claim obtained under the former Creditors’ Relief Act by issuing writs of seizure and sale against a former client for unpaid legal accounts arising from matrimonial litigation.

The debtor argued the certificates were invalid due to breaches of the Solicitors Act, including commencing recovery proceedings while accounts were under assessment and bringing a claim within one month of delivering a bill.

The court held that proceedings under the Creditors’ Relief Act constituted an “action” for the purposes of the Solicitors Act.

As a result, the first certificate was a nullity due to breach of s. 6(4), while the second certificate was partially unenforceable because part of the claim violated s. 2(1).

The sheriff was directed to enforce the second certificate only for the reduced amount calculated by the court.